Russell v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 16-460V Filed: November 17, 2016 UNPUBLISHED **************************** LINDA K. RUSSELL, * * Petitioner, * Joint Stipulation on Damages; v. * Influenza (“Flu”); Shoulder Injury * Related to Vaccine Administration SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SIRVA”); Special Processing AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Unit (“SPU”) * Respondent. * * **************************** Daniel Leeper, Leeper & Leeper, St. Petersburg, FL, for petitioner. Jennifer Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 Dorsey, Chief Special Master: On April 11, 2016, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) following an influenza (“flu”) vaccination administered on October 19, 2013. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed November 16, 2016, at ¶¶ 2, 3. Petitioner further alleges the vaccine was administered within the United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her alleged injury for more than six months, and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on her behalf. Petition at 1, 9; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury and residual effects were caused-in-fact by the flu vaccine. Respondent further denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner any other injury or her current condition.” Stipulation at ¶ 6. 1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). Nevertheless, on November 16, 2016, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The undersigned finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein. The parties stipulate that petitioner shall receive the following compensation: A lump sum of $105,529.92 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Id. The undersigned approves the requested amount for petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2